mawz wrote:
Actually, lower fps means you can clock the sensor slower and thus generate less heat (and noise).
Got a chance to try an A99 with prerelease firmware. Short answer is that it is indeed a tracking beast, and it's got some rather nice additional features via depth detection, including a focus limiter that is in-camera (and stupidly fast to configure/adjust).
The feature adds on the A99 from the EVF are significant, plenty of stuff it couldn't do in OVF mode (including PDAF with face detection/tracking, and object detection/tracking even in MF mode). LV on DSLR's continues to be a hack in comparison with how seamless it is on Sony's SLT and NEX cameras. Aside from that 0.5EV, there's no gain from having an OVF for Sony, and they'd lose their major product differentiation.
As a note, Sony may be using the same OLED panel for the EVF as on the A77/A65/NEX-7, but the processing chain driving it seems greatly improved. I was shooting the A99 in a relatively dim store and saw no shadow blocking and a much faster LV feed with no slowdowns, even with a T4.5 lens mounted at ISO 50 and 1/4 second exposure....Show more →
cputeq, I agree with everything under the dotted line, the info above it matters not one whit to me, except that the hefty price comes partially from all the navel gazing and wild goose chasing going on at Sony. If the sensor is not killer, I don't see A900 people moving, as they eye off the D800.
Ron, they have never got the idea of a proper lens lineup - there is a reason some use alt glass. And long lenses are an 'owned by Canikon' category. Sony think they are a lens company!
Skeoch's images run the reds close to gamut breach. Not much shadow detail...OOC jpegs with what settings?
The 24/2 is a firm favourite with rusted on types, and was a good development by them. Now go to CZ and beg for an updated CY 35/1.4, yes, a 70-200/2.8 for the 'pro zoom' set (but they have their own thing so that is not on), and an 18-20mm along the lines of the 21mm or 15mm ZEs.
mawz, nice. Any more thoughts, did the EVF 'experience' differ from the A77 in other ways? How did it handle, weight - much heavier than A77?
mawz wrote:
As a note, Sony may be using the same OLED panel for the EVF as on the A77/A65/NEX-7, but the processing chain driving it seems greatly improved. I was shooting the A99 in a relatively dim store and saw no shadow blocking and a much faster LV feed with no slowdowns, even with a T4.5 lens mounted at ISO 50 and 1/4 second exposure.
Like the A77 and NEX-7 sharing the same EVF plusses and minuses, can we assume the RX1 and A99 will share this same EVF performance increase? If so that's great news for RX series camera buyers too.
philip_pj wrote:
mawz, nice. Any more thoughts, did the EVF 'experience' differ from the A77 in other ways? How did it handle, weight - much heavier than A77?
My main impression of the EVF was it was simply smoother than the A77.
Weight is quite similar to the A77, the body is noticeably smaller and lighter than the A900, comparable to the A77 and only marginally larger than my Maxxum 7. This is a light body for an FF camera, but still quite solid in feel. That said it's a very well built body and the handgrip is nicer than the A77. The button layout is also excellent, all the buttons on the back except the Menu button are reachable with the right thumb. As someone who wasn't entirely sold on the A900's handling, I can say I much prefer the A99.
mawz wrote:
My main impression of the EVF was it was simply smoother than the A77.
Weight is quite similar to the A77, the body is noticeably smaller and lighter than the A900, comparable to the A77 and only marginally larger than my Maxxum 7. This is a light body for an FF camera, but still quite solid in feel. That said it's a very well built body and the handgrip is nicer than the A77. The button layout is also excellent, all the buttons on the back except the Menu button are reachable with the right thumb. As someone who wasn't entirely sold on the A900's handling, I can say I much prefer the A99. ...Show more →
So the actual size of the finder view is smaller than the a900?
thanks, mawz. I am coming around to be able to see the benefits of EVF/SLT (for MF especially) and associated features like first shutter curtain, active histo and it seems Sony put good work into the size and ergo of the A99 - good for them. The image of the camera with the 50/1.4 ZA makes the lens look huge or the camera small, a bit of both maybe.
We just received an A77 to get a lot of pixels on long lenses, and it's a very nice camera re compactness and build quality, so more of the same sounds good, maybe very good.
Had it had the 36MP sensor, I would have considered it. For myself, I would buy the D800 over this since the resolution is more important if I'm spending the big bucks for a system camera.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Had it had the 36MP sensor, I would have considered it. For myself, I would buy the D800 over this since the resolution is more important if I'm spending the big bucks for a system camera.
The EVF manual focusing aids would be a compelling reason over the D800, for me. I like looking thorough OVFs, but EVFs are really great for ttl manual focusing.
douglasf13 wrote:
So who is gonna buy this, remove the mirror, and Leitax some Leica Rs onto it? It even looks a little like the DMR!
if it were priced like the a850 i might do that, this is too expensive for the limited use i would give it. it's funny most people are complaining about the rx1 being to expensive for it's niche, but if i had both i would use the rx1 80% of the time and this maybe 10%. i actually just sold my a55 because i wasn't using it.
sebboh wrote:
if it were priced like the a850 i might do that, this is too expensive for the limited use i would give it. it's funny most people are complaining about the rx1 being to expensive for it's niche, but if i had both i would use the rx1 80% of the time and this maybe 10%. i actually just sold my a55 because i wasn't using it.
It is crazy but I agree. I'm actually considering the RX1 because I know I would use it all the time. For that reason, I see the RX1 as the better value. I also think the a99 should be priced no more than the older a850 (which I'm sure actually cost Sony more to make given it's OVF and very complex mirror). For it's price, the a99 should have had the 36MP sensor imo. The only justification for its current price would have been if the rumor of it being a super high FPS/ CaNikon Pro competitor were true (a camera which I would have no interest in myself). I suspect the a99 will drop in price quite quickly (by holiday season even) whereas I'm afraid the RX1 will not.
Maybe I'm one of the few thinking this camera seems like an easy win in the FF SLR group. The RX1 may be the cool kids' camera, but the A99 sounds like it should be a very well rounded body.
I do wonder if the dual AF will raise the bar, or just look good on paper.
By the way is the A99 6fps, or 5fps? I have read it's the latter. Either way, sufficient for my needs.
At the end of the day, will it put the 5D3 to shame?
douglasf13 wrote:
So who is gonna buy this, remove the mirror, and Leitax some Leica Rs onto it? It even looks a little like the DMR!
Maybe in a year or so. Let them work out the initial release problems and wait for the prices to drop. Then I'll pick up a used one. I'm sure the Rs will all look just as good on the camera next year. Until then, I'll "suffer" with the a900.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
So the actual size of the finder view is smaller than the a900?
It's marginally smaller, 0.71x effective but officially the same spec at 0.74x, 100%. the EVF on the NEX-7, NEX-6, A77, A65 and the clip-on finder for the NEX-5N/5R are all the same. The specs are a little misleading as the APS-C EVF specs are respective to an APS-C sensor size and the A99 sensor is slightly smaller than the A900 sensor (39.8x23.8 vs 39.9x24mm for the A900) which is where that 0.03x is lost.
FlyPenFly wrote:
Since it has on sensor Pdaf, I wonder if the SLT mirror removal would still allow basic AF.
No, the on-sensor PDAF is not the primary system, the normal unit is. The on-sensor unit seems to be used primarily for opbject tracking and depth detection (the former with CDAF assist, the latter is the real win though as CDAF can't do that)
Jacob D wrote:
Maybe I'm one of the few thinking this camera seems like an easy win in the FF SLR group. The RX1 may be the cool kids' camera, but the A99 sounds like it should be a very well rounded body.
I do wonder if the dual AF will raise the bar, or just look good on paper.
By the way is the A99 6fps, or 5fps? I have read it's the latter. Either way, sufficient for my needs.
At the end of the day, will it put the 5D3 to shame?
The new AF system is well beyond what any previous A mount body could do, and arguably best in class. I don't expect it to quite be up to D4/1D X speeds, but it should actually track better as the A99 has significantly more data available to it to feed the tracking system (CDAF object detection/tracking+PDAF+On-Sensor PDAF for depth data vs PDAF+Metering Data for Nikon and plain PDAF for Canon)
The A99 is indeed 6fps, a gain over the A900's 5fps.
As to the A99 vs the 5D3, I don't think it's much of a contest. The 5D3 is for the most part a warmed over 5D2. The A99 brings a better AF system, a better sensor and far better video capability (1080p60 for starters) as well as plenty of features that the 5D3 lacks including AF in Video, a far better LV implementation (with flip/twist LCD) and little things like silenced buttons and a control dial that's fully silenced. I'd say the difference will be noticable but not overwhelming as a stills camera, but for video there's no comparison, the 5D3 is a joke in comparison, and the A99 is offering capabilities via add-ons like Balanced XLR inputs for audio that have previously been unavailable without using 3rd party adapters or hacks.
I thought the Canon 5D3 AF was really a major jump over the older 5D's, at least from everything I have seen and read. Very close to the top of the line Canon AF even. No?
